Building Industry Association Of Washington, V. Governor Jay Inslee, 54987-5

Governor Inslee created a Task Force to increase Chinook salmon and recommended giving WDFW enhanced civil-penalty authority (up to $10,000).
2019 HB 1579 initially authorized $10,000-per-violation penalties; the Senate added an unrelated Section 13 and contingency Subsection 8(1)(a) tying the $10,000 penalty to enactment of Section 13.
The Governor vetoed Section 13 and Subsection 8(1)(a) (citing title/scope and improper contingency), signed the remainder, and directed WDFW to proceed with rulemaking to implement penalties.
BIAW sued seeking declaratory relief (challenging the veto’s constitutionality) and mandamus relief; it submitted declarations alleging business uncertainty and potential financial harm but no concrete losses.
The trial court granted summary judgment for the Governor and WDFW for lack of standing; the Court of Appeals affirmed, and WDFW later adopted rules allowing penalties up to $10,000.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether BIAW has UDJA standing (injury in fact) to challenge the Governor’s partial veto	BIAW: the veto created uncertainty/insecurity about penalty exposure that harms members and deters projects	Governor/WDFW: alleged harms are speculative, contingent on rulemaking and third‑party decisions, so not an injury in fact	No standing: speculative future and conditional harms do not satisfy injury in fact; court will not relax standing nor treat matter as of substantial public import

Grant County Fire Prot. Dist. No. 5 v. City of Moses Lake, 150 Wn.2d 791 (recognizing UDJA standing boundaries)
Washington State Housing Finance Comm’n v. National Homebuyers Fund, Inc., 193 Wn.2d 704 (UDJA is liberally construed; two‑part UDJA standing test)
Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417 (1998) (standing exists where veto causes concrete, measurable financial injury)
Knight v. City of Yelm, 173 Wn.2d 325 (threatened injury must be immediate, concrete, and specific)
Yakima County (W. Valley) Fire Prot. Dist. No. 12 v. City of Yakima, 122 Wn.2d 371 (no standing where injury depends on multiple remote contingencies)
To–Ro Trade Shows v. Collins, 144 Wn.2d 403 (advisory‑opinion prohibition; rare exceptions for matters of substantial public importance)
Rocha v. King County, 195 Wn.2d 412 (UDJA standing and when courts may reach merits for claims premised on asserted statutory rights)
Seattle Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council v. Apprenticeship & Training Council, 129 Wn.2d 787 (procedural‑injury doctrine and relaxed standing standards)